IONA LERIOU, ELEPTHERIOS L. LONGA, AND STEPHEN L.

LONGA,
PETITIONERS, V. YOHANNA FRENESI S. LONGA (MINOR) AND VICTORIA
PONCIANA S. LONGA (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER MARY JANE
B. STA. CRUZ, RESPONDENTS.
[ G.R. No. 203923, October 08, 2018 ]

FACTS:
Enrique T. Longa is the father of Eleptherios, Stephen, Yohanna, and Victoria.
Eleptherios and Stephen are his legitimate children while Yohanna and Victoria are illegitimate.
Enrique died intestate.
Respondent-minors Yohanna and Victoria are represented by their mother, Mary Jane B.
Sta. Cruz, in the special proceeding entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Enrique T.
Longa Petition for Letters of Administration.” Respondents were deemed as pauper litigants and
exempt from paying the filing fee, subject to the payment thereof once a final judgment is
rendered in their favor. Mary Jane was appointed as the administratrix of Enrique’s estate.
Petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion (1.) To Remove Jane Sta. Cruz as Administratrix;
and (2.) Appoint Eleptherios L. Longa or His Nominee as Administrator. Petitioners alleged that
they were denied due process of law because they did not receive any notice about respondents'
Petition for Letters Administration.
Petitioners assert that each of them, being the surviving spouse and legitimate children of
Enrique, has a preferential right over respondents to act as administrator of the estate, or to
designate somebody else to administer the estate in their behalf, pursuant to the order of
preference under Rule 78, Section 6.
Respondent-administratrix denied the accusations of the petitioners and alleged that she
mailed the Petition for Letters of Administration and the RTC Order petitioners in the addresses
that the latter gave her, and that she coordinated with the DFA for the service of the Petition for
Letters of Administration to petitioners. Respondent-administratrix also exchanged
correspondences with petitioners and their counsels about her decision to let the court settle
Enrique's estate. She also denied committing any act of misrepresentation with regards to the
respondents being pauper litigants. She maintained that she is a pauper litigant since she has no
capacity to pay the P480,000.00 bond and she had to borrow money from a friend to pay the
P25,000.00 premium so that she may post a surety bond.
Respondent-administratrix averred that petitioners are disqualified to act as
administrators because petitioner Iona, a Greek national, is already divorced from Enrique and
has already remarried as shown by her name Iona Leriou Regala in the Omnibus Motion, and
petitioners Eleptherios and Stephen are non-residents of the Philippines.
The RTC finds that the petitioners in their instant Omnibus Motion has not shown any
circumstance as sufficient grounds for the removal of Ms. Jane Sta. Cruz as the court-appointed
Administratrix of the estate of the late Enrique Longa. Records showed that Ms. Sta. Cruz has
substantially complied with the Court's Order.
Hence, the petitioners filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari in the Supreme
Court.

ISSUES: Whether or not the Petition for Review on Certiorari contains the same issues and
arguments raised by petitioners in their Omnibus Motion and Appellants' Brief.
HELD: Yes, the Petition for Review on Certiorari reveals that it contains the same issues and
arguments raised by petitioners in their Omnibus Motion and Appellants' Brief.

Rule 45, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Court requires the petition to contain a sworn
certification against forum shopping. Non-compliance therewith or a defect therein is generally
not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the
Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or
compelling reasons." It must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however,
for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a
Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.

In this case, it was not petitioners but Atty. Baquiran who signed the certification against
forum shopping despite the absence of any showing that petitioners executed an SPA authorizing
Atty. Baquiran to sign in their behalf.

Therefore, the Petition should be dismissed.

(Note: Please refer to Rule 7, Sec. 5, 2nd Paragraph)